Thursday, November 8, 2018


A Connecticut attorney's trust account overdraft led to the filing of a presentment (i.e. bar charges).

The attorney sought to appeal the presentment on alleged due process grounds, leading to this rejection from the Connecticut Appellate Court

This court’s decisions in Miniter and Rozbicki are dispositive of the plaintiff’s appeal to this court. In both cases, this court, in holding that an order of presentment is not a final judgment for the purposes of appeal, stated: ‘‘An order of presentment is an initial step in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney. Following the filing of a presentment complaint, a hearing on the merits is held after which the court renders judgment on the presentment complaint. See Practice Book § 2-47 (a). The committee’s decision directing that a presentment be filed in Superior Court is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment from which an appeal to the Superior Court lies.

The history

The statewide bar counsel filed a grievance complaint, dated July 28, 2014, against the plaintiff, an attorney, alleging that he overdrafted funds from his IOLTA account.  After an audit and a full hearing, the reviewing committee found by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff committed unethical conduct and violated rules 1.15, 1.3, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Practice Book § 2-27. On November 20, 2015, the reviewing committee, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-35 (i), ordered that the
plaintiff be presented to the Superior Court. On February 3, 2016, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment against the plaintiff.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment